A Privilege Speech
Senator Richard J. Gordon
27 March 2006
“Constitutionalism, in a narrow sense, is the practice of limited government ensured by the existence of the Constitution. Thus Constitutionalism can, in this sense, be said to exist when government institutions and political processes are effectively constrained by constitutional rules. More broadly, Constitutionalism is a set of political values and aspirations that reflect the desire to protect liberty through the establishment of internal and external checks on governmental power. Constitutionalism ensures that authority arises ‘from below’, and is always grounded in legitimacy. The classic expression of this doctrine is that government must be based upon the ‘consent of the governed’. In this sense, Constitutionalism is a species of political liberalism.”
Mr. President, honorable colleagues, good afternoon. The statement that I just quoted came from the writings of contemporary political thinker Andrew Heywood on Constitutionalism.
I stand before you today on a matter of personal and collective privilege to call for the strengthening of liberal democracy, a democracy that our forefathers gave their lives to achieve.
This democracy is under severe threat Mr. President, from faceless people who come like thieves in the night, hoping to seize power while the Filipino people sleep soundly on the bed of their apathy. Who are these faceless people? These faceless people are political opportunists with forked tongues whispering sweet chicanery, promising a cure for all the nation’s ills. They propose a charter change through people’s initiative using barangay assemblies, a proposal that sounds deceptively legitimate. But, Mr. President, let our people not be fooled by their sweet promises lest we awaken to a nightmare where our rights have been trampled and our democracy lies in shambles.
Erosion of the Value of the Constitution
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land, but today, Mr. President, we bear witness to a time in our history when the Constitution is steadily losing its value. Politicians motivated by blind ambition and selfish interest have made a travesty of the Constitution by blatantly ignoring the processes that it prescribes in its sacred pages that should govern the conduct of our country. The political maelstrom that continues to plague our country has tested our character, and sad to say, Mr. President, we have been found wanting. The highway of our national history is littered with the muddy footprints of politicians and entities that have intervened in the process of Constitutional changes starting from the 1935 Constitution to the 1987 Constitution.
The first Philippine constitution was drafted during the American period under American tutelage. It was enforced starting in 1935. Two amendments were introduced in 1940. The first was to create a bicameral legislature, and the second was to amend the original term of office of the President from six years to four years with re-election.
In 1946, the constitution was revised granting parity rights to Americans. In line with the thrust for full independence, a Constitutional Convention was convened in 1971, but President Marcos intervened and declared martial law to lengthen his hold on power. Shortly thereafter, the draft of the 1973 Constitution was formally approved by the Constitutional Convention and was submitted to the Citizen’s Assemblies for ratification through a show of hands. This Constitution set up a modified parliamentary system of government with unicameral National Assembly.
In 1981, another amendment was made modifying the Parliamentary System by giving the President control over the ministries.
In 1984, the Constitution was amended to restore representation in Batasan Pambansa by district, create the office of the Vice-President and give the President power of legislation.
When Ferdinand E. Marcos was ousted in 1986, the new government led by Corazon C. Aquino promulgated what is now known as the Freedom Constitution in order to legitimize her administration. This 1987 Constitution restored the presidential form of government.
What I wish to highlight here Mr. President are the interferences and infirmities in the processes of amending the Constitution; interferences and infirmities that the proponents of charter change today seek to propagate and once again, introduce.
All these experiences have led to the decline of the Philippines from Asia’s number one to Asia’s used to be. To date, the 1987 Constitution still stands, but the lobby for another charter change is so intensive that its proponents are willing to resort to extra-constitutional means to achieve it, despite the Filipino people’s clear rejection of the proposal reflected in the Pulse Asia Survey showing that 60% of Filipinos oppose a shift to a parliamentary system of government and 55% think it inappropriate to amend the Constitution now.
Severe Challenges to the Constitution
Mr. President, we were the first democracy in Asia, but in these days of uncertainty, where true character is bound to reveal itself, our democracy has bared its weaknesses, like an ill-trained boxer tottering in the ring.
The first barrage of blows was dealt by the executive, when threatened by the people’s dissatisfaction with its performance, instituted a Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR), which has replaced maximum tolerance in the police dispersal of protest rallies and assemblies against her. It threw a one-two combination with Executive Order No. 464 and Presidential Proclamation 1017.
The first blow was a shot to the stomach through EO 464. This was quickly followed by a right haymaker to the breadbasket with the issuance of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 which declared the country to be in a State of Emergency after threats of a coup d’etat. These two major blows to the body came after a series of punches to the ribs with a previous declaration of a State of Rebellion during the May 1 uprising known as EDSA III and again during the Oakwood Mutiny. These declarations were actually unnecessary as the inherent powers of the President would have enabled her to deal with these uprisings. The fact that she declared them shows a pattern of increasing brazenness, which caused a chilling effect on the people’s enjoyment of their civil liberties, especially with the issuance of Proclamation 1017, and the warrantless raid and arrests that followed.
Mr. President, the concept of liberal democracy ensures the rule of law, where the government is subject to law, the Constitution is the criterion of validity, civil rights are guaranteed, there is an independent judiciary and the people’s welfare is paramount. These blows have considerably weakened the rule of law. Our democracy stands bloodied and bruised in the middle of the ring. Our people whose fate is tied to our democracy have been whipped into submission, its body weakened, about to be knocked-out.
We have always relied on the Supreme Court to ring the bell to end the round; to uphold the Constitution in our behalf. But the Supreme Court is so overloaded right now with constitutional cases of extreme national importance. Let us not further put our democracy to the test and burden our political system, particularly the Judiciary with matters that can be amicably settled out of self-restraint and respect between co-equal branches of the government. It is about time that we as citizens come to the defense of democracy.
Mr. President, today, let me speak in behalf of democracy, to lay bare the sham that threatens to throw the knock-out punch.
Mr. President, several attempts have been made to facilitate charter change.
First, the Consultative Commission was convened by the President to study possible amendments to the Constitution without any legal justification nor appropriation for the same.
Second, the proposed No Election (NO-EL) scenario was floated to muster support for charter change, which remains a possibility to this day despite ethical considerations. The intention of the NO-EL provision reveals itself plainly for the incumbent elected officials to perpetuate themselves in power. Clearly what they seek is change for their benefit and not for the benefit of the Filipino people.
Third, the House of Representatives proposed a Constituent Assembly and insinuated that the Senate was a dispensable party in this process. The Senate responded to this insinuation by passing Resolution No. 473, expressly stating that “the sense of the Senate that any proposed amendment to, or revision of, the constitution requires the approval of the Senate and the House of Representatives, voting separately.”
And now, their most recent attempt is passing off a DILG scheme for a people’s initiative. This scheme was spurred into motion by Memorandum Circular No. 2006-17 dated February 23, 2006 and Memorandum Circular No. 2006-25 dated March 10, 2006, setting the dates for Barangay Assemblies on March 25 and October 21, 2006. In several interviews with the press, government officials admitted that the purpose of these assemblies was to gather signatures in support of charter change. Their chicanery allegedly bore fruit as they claimed to have collected four million signatures in support of this proposal.
The concerted move to change the Constitution through the DILG-initiated barangay assemblies nationwide are useless at this time and are a waste of precious time and resources. Congress has yet to provide for the implementation of the exercise of people’s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution.
There is a need for an enabling law to be first enacted by Congress for the exercise of this right. Thus, those who want to propose amendments to the Constitution via people’s initiative must first go to Congress and get an ENABLING LAW passed.
Furthermore, there can be no people’s initiative when government money is being spent to spur it on. It is a masquerade, an abomination. It must not be allowed to happen. Perhaps we should investigate the DILG for misappropriating funds for this dubious exercise. In a previous attempt to propose an amendment lifting the term limits of all elective government officials, the Supreme Court has already declared that Republic Act No. 6735, The Initiative and Referendum Act, is inadequate to cover the system on initiative on amendments to the Constitution in Santiago vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, 27 March 1997. Since no law has yet been passed by Congress, the same situation holds true at present and any effort to change the Constitution via people’s initiative will only be futile. However, this lack of legal foundation has not stopped its proponents from taking steps to promote this initiative, another vivid example of cheap politics and lack of regard for the rule of law, which continues to steal our dignity as a people and as a nation.
In Zambales, a certain politician launched an innovative signature campaign in connection with this same people’s initiative that we see today. Bags of rice, canned goods and other food items were distributed to the townspeople. She invited the poorest of the poor to her birthday celebration and gave them rice and sardines on the condition that they apply for, and surrender, their cedulas. This is the epitome of patronage politics and lack of respect, that these politicians would exploit the poverty of our people to propagate their political agenda. As early as that week, I already sounded the warning that moves like this can be used to promote charter change. This is what it has become. Politicians are giving rice, goods and money in exchange for signatures in support of charter change. They have begun to identify people who are “buyable”. Minamaliit nila ang Konstitusyon, habang binobobo at inaapi ang mga tao dahil hindi sila nabibigyan ng sapat na pagkakataong pag-aralan ang Konstitusyon.
A people’s initiative form to change the Constitution was also circulated in Olongapo City containing the following question: “Do you approve of the amendment of Articles VI and VII of the 1987 Constitution, changing the form of government from the present bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system of government, in order to achieve greater efficiency, simplicity and economy in government, and providing an Article XVIII as Transitory Provisions for the orderly shift from one system to another?” This proposal is not just an amendment to the Constitution, it is practically a revision of the entire Constitution. Hence, this cannot be done through a people’s initiative. People’s initiative as a mode to change the Constitution only covers amendments to, not the revision of, the Constitution. The power to propose any revision of the Constitution belongs only to Congress or a constitutional convention. People’s initiative must be clearly specific on a particular amendment they wish to propose in the Constitution, one that leaves no room for doubt. Changing the form of government has too many details, which the people cannot adequately propose through initiative. Article VI on Legislative Department of the Constitution has 32 sections, while Article VII on Executive Department has 23 sections. What portions of these two major articles of the Constitution do they want to change? What transitory provisions do they have in mind for the shift to a unicameral-parliamentary system of government? This necessarily involves much debate, which can only be threshed out in Congress or a constitutional convention as it entails a revision of, and not merely an amendment to, the Constitution.
For the sake of clarity, let me define revision and amendment. According to Father Joaquin Bernas, a known Constitutionalist, and the Dean of the Ateneo School of Law, both signify change in the constitutional text. An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and isolated provisions of the Constitution. Its guiding original intention is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions or to suppress existing ones accordingly as addition or subtraction might be demanded by existing conditions.
In revision, however, the guiding intention and plan contemplate a re-examination of the entire document or an important cluster of provisions in the document to determine how and to what extent it should be altered. The end product of a revision can be an important structural change in the government or a change which affects several provisions of the Constitution.
Mr. President, according to Section 397(b), Chapter 6, Title I, Book III of the Local Government Code fathered by our esteemed Minority Floor Leader, Nene Pimentel: “The barangay assembly shall meet at least twice a year to hear and discuss the semestral report of the sangguniang barangay concerning its activities and finances as well as problems affecting the barangay. Its meetings shall be held upon call of the punong barangay or of at least four (4) members of the sangguniang barangay, or upon written petition of at least five percent (5%) of the assembly members.”
Furthermore, the powers of the barangay assembly are also provided in Section 398 which states that: “The barangay assembly shall: (a) Initiate legislative processes by recommending to the sangguniang barangay the adoption of measures for the welfare of the barangay and the city or municipality concerned; (b) Decide on the adoption of initiative as a legal process whereby the registered voters of the barangay may directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance; and (c) Hear and pass upon the semestral report of the sangguniang barangay concerning its activities and finances.”
Hence, the purpose of a barangay assembly is simply to resolve matters concerning the barangay.
Furthermore, any genuine initiative from this assembly should emanate from the ground up instead of the other way around like this proposal for charter change. Simply put, the barangay assembly is being misused as a forum to push for the political agenda of charter change that is so remote from local barangay matters. It is being used for a purpose for which it was not intended and in the process becomes an unauthorized use of public funds and resources.
To add insult to injury, our people are unable to comprehend this dubious agenda, with the complex question propounded to them. The jurisdiction of the barangay assembly is limited to problems affecting the barangay and the local community. Unfortunately, certain politicians have chosen to overlook this lawful limitation to use the barangay assembly as a means to change the form of government. The dirty handprints of their intentions are clear. They are like prowlers, enemies we do not see, whose purpose is to snatch democracy from beneath our own feet.
In a people’s initiative, the COMELEC would indispensably have to certify the sufficiency of a petition to propose an amendment to the Constitution, assuming that there is already an enabling law for charter change. Unfortunately, the credibility of our electoral process has been placed in serious doubt due to the Hello Garci controversy and the anomalous bidding for poll automation. Hence, before any amendment to the Constitution, we must reform the electoral process to ensure that the Philippines is capable of conducting free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
As such, before we embark on amending the Constitution, should we not focus on reforming the COMELEC and the electoral system first? The electoral system is the basic foundation of a liberal democracy. We must secure the sovereign will of the people through a clean, effective and efficient electoral system. Inevitably, charter change would also have to go through the process of a plebiscite under the COMELEC’s watch. Thus, the COMELEC must primarily be strengthened as a vital democratic institution.
Mr. President, we all read the news, and the realities that I have cited today are not new to any of us. In fact, all of them have become such old news, that our people have long since ceased to be amazed or alarmed by any of them. And it is precisely this lack of alarm, this jaded apathy, and a growing sense of helplessness that will enable this blatant sham of a proposal to slip through.
Those who will trample on the Constitution for their personal agenda are relying on our people’s inaction. They are relying on the premise that our electorate has become “buyable”. They are relying on our people not caring that they will lose their right to vote over the fundamental law that will govern them.
Mr. President, let us prove them wrong. Let us render their attempt to subvert the Constitution futile. Mr. President, each of us was elected to this Chamber by the entire nation. We each took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Let us do our duty, Mr. President, let us fulfill our oaths. They have vested us with the right to legislate the laws that will govern them, and in the same vein protect them by upholding the Constitution that guarantees their rights and civil liberties. And so, Mr. President, esteemed colleagues, we must act now to ensure that our people are not led to blindly sign their names onto a future they hardly know anything about.
We must stop this diabolical plan that uses government resources to implement a plan that serves the interests of a powerful few. We must not allow liberal democracy to be put in peril.
We must act now. Because as Voltaire said, “So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”
I call upon the Senate today to perform this sacred duty, to truly stand in behalf of the interest of our constituents by opposing any and all moves towards Charter Change that does not respect and abide by the provisions and processes enshrined in the Constitution. Perhaps at some better time in the future when there are no questions on the credibility of our electoral process, and no questions on the election of the President, we can then amend the Constitution. But now is not the time.
Mr. President, evil can only flourish when good men do nothing. In the children’s story, The Emperor’s New Clothes, the wily tailors would have gotten away with their dastardly deed, having correctly relied on the foolishness of the king and the people’s fear of pointing it out. All it took was one child, one child in the crowd who dared speak the truth; the king was naked, the clothes were a sham.
The barangay assemblies are a sham, Mr. President, a sham concocted to circumvent the Constitution and undermine democracy.
Let us be the Senate that exposed it. Let us awaken the people from their slumber of apathy. Let us not allow them to settle for the crumbs of patronage, before they are led to slaughter.
Thank you and good afternoon.
r Richard ‘Dick’ Gordon raises his concerns for the overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) trapped in strife-torn Lebanon before members of the media during the Kapihan sa Senado Thursday afternoon. Gordon filed a bill seeking to amend the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 following the evacuation and employment issues affecting the OFWs in Lebanon. Recently, President Arroyo ordered the total evacuation of all Filipinos in Lebanon as war heightens between Israeli and Hezbollah forces. (Senate Photo by Albert Calvelo, PRIB) 
